“THE D.C. MADAM WAS MURDERED!”

The Canal Street Madam - Jeanette Maier

Jeanette Maier, best known as “The Canal Street Madam,” reveals a criminal pattern behind the death of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
On the morning of May 1, 2008, “D.C. Madam” Deborah Jeane Palfrey was found hanged in a storage shed near her mother’s home in Tarpon Springs, Florida. Local police wasted no time in ruling the death a suicide. But people familiar with the high-end escort service operator’s history and others who knew Palfrey personally suspected the authorities were guilty of a rush to judgment.
The 52-year-old Palfrey had been convicted on April 15 of racketeering and money laundering charges for running a prostitution ring that catered to the Washington, D.C., elite. Throughout her trial in U.S. District Court, Palfrey maintained that her company—Pamela Martin & Associates—provided escort services that were entirely legal.
HUSTLER Publisher Larry Flynt had steadfastly supported Palfrey in her efforts to exonerate herself and expose the hypocrites who had used her services. Based on phone records released by Palfrey, Flynt exposed Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter from Louisiana in July 2007 as a client of the D.C. Madam. Other names eventually linked to phone numbers in Palfrey’s records included former senior State Department official Randall Tobias and highranking military strategist Harlan Ullman. Prior to her death, Palfrey implied that she had information on several other prominent Beltway figures.

D.C. Madam - Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Palfrey’s sudden demise immediately generated widespread suspicion of foul play. In an interview after her body was discovered, Flynt told FoxNews.com, “I think the media should be very cautious in treating this as a suicide.” Also expressing suspicion, Fox talk-show host Geraldo Rivera called for Florida Governor Charlie Crist to order a full investigation.
D.C. private investigator Dan Moldea, who knew Palfrey and had worked with Larry Flynt to obtain her information, took the opposite view, claiming she told him she’d sooner commit suicide than go to jail. However, in a recorded interview with radio host Alex Jones shortly before her death, Palfrey declared, “No, I am not planning to commit suicide.”
Speaking with HUSTLER in 2007, Jeanette Maier—the former madam of the Canal Street Brothel in New Orleans—confirmed that D.C. Madam client David Vitter had also frequented her establishment in his pre- Washington years. Now, in the wake of the Eliot Spitzer scandal and the suspicious death of Palfrey, Maier is speaking out about the threats facing women who know too much.
HUSTLER: What was your first thought when you heard about the death of Deborah Jeane Palfrey?
JEANETTE MAIER: She was murdered! There are several reasons: She was looking at 55 years [in prison], but she would only get four to six. She was also working out a deal with someone to write a book. The owner of the condo she lived in said she was leaving with a box of papers. Where did those papers go? She also said to him, “I think people are following me.” That’s why she was going to her mother’s house. Why would a woman go to her mother’s house so her mother could find her dead? She would have hung herself in her condo if she were going to commit suicide that way.
Palfrey allegedly said she would kill herself before going back to jail.
A lot of people facing time will say stuff like that. I’ve said it, but I would never commit suicide. I did time in jail. It was a vacation. Palfrey was looking at only four to six years. There was no reason for that woman to kill herself. She had too much to gain by not doing so. The last interview she gave was on The Alex Jones Show. She’s on tape saying, “I’m not planning to commit suicide. I plan on defending myself vigorously.” She specifically said that there was a vendetta out on her and that she would likely be “suicided.”
Do you think Palfrey was murdered because of information she had, or do you think it was a revenge killing?
I think there was something she was hiding that was bigger than information she had already released. The people in the current establishment have got a lot to hide, and this lady knew a lot about them. There are rumors that Dick Cheney’s name could have been on that list, [although Palfrey admitted that she didn’t know for a fact that he was a client].
What about other cases similar to this one?
Brandy Britton, who worked for Palfrey and who saw many politicians, was also murdered right before her trial. Hung. She had everything ahead of her. She was young, bright, never talked about suicide; then she’s found hanging. [Britton allegedly was an escort for Randall Tobias.]
There’s also the case of Sylvia Landry, a Baton Rouge madam. In 1992 she opened up a business, and in ’94 she [allegedly] sent black flowers [to her clients] in the state capital because they were going to give her jail time and weren’t helping her. She escaped a federal prison only to be caught again, supposedly. Then she’s found hung in her cell [in Texas]. Why would she do that when she had money to gain by writing about these freaks? They need to reopen the Landry case.
Why has there been a pattern of hangings as opposed to other methods?
If the police go in with forensics, everything has to be perfect. [In staged gunshot suicides] the victims have to have powder on their hands and perfect aim. There’s too much that would point to murder. So the best thing to do is hang them. Then they can just say, “Oh, well, she hung herself because she was depressed.” But women don’t [usually] hang themselves; that’s a fact. First of all, we don’t know anything about tying nooses, and we like to leave a beautiful corpse.
I once had a contract on my life. The man that was supposed to carry it out actually came to me and told me I was supposed to be killed, hung. But because he knew me, he wasn’t going to do that. Hookers all know that’s how they kill. I know what to expect when they come for me. I have a big knife, just waiting. I’m ready; and believe me, you will find DNA.
What about a Louisiana connection in the Palfrey case? U.S. Senator David Vitter was named and shamed by her information.
I wouldn’t put it past anybody right now. Other than [politics in] Washington, D.C., Louisiana politics are probably the most rotten. They think of us not as ladies, but a bunch of hookers. Just another whore is dead, you know? We are mothers, sisters, daughters and grandmothers. Society has to see us differently, and they have to see the system as corrupt.
I’ve slept with people that shoot drugs and sleep with hookers on the taxpayer’s money. I know because I got a lot of your tax dollars! I asked one city politician as he was sticking a needle in his arm, “When are you guys going to fix the streets?” He looked at his arm, he looked at me and said, “These are the streets.”
If you are found hanged, how will we know it wasn’t suicide?
I would not kill myself that way. I would never hang myself. You got times when your bills are piling up, and you think, I can’t handle all the crap that’s on my shoulders right now. But you make it through and hope for the future. I’m working on a possible sitcom and a couple of book deals. Why would I kill myself knowing that there’s a possibility of me coming into a lot of money? I’ve got a whole future ahead of me, just as Deborah had, just as Landry had. We have no reason to kill ourselves.
What do you recommend to women who know too much, such as Palfrey did, and whose lives may therefore be in danger?
Don’t run, don’t hide and don’t keep quiet. Let everybody know. I said on the radio: If I am found dead, it was them. Make sure you give all your information to somebody you trust. Tell them who you think may be after you. And leave a code for your family. Let people know that if you leave a suicide note, there’s going to be a special mark on that paper, a doodle or something, that means you were forced to sign it. Don’t be afraid to continue living. Show your face, be on TV. They’re going to come after you, so get as much information out there as you can. Make them more afraid of you than you are of them.
Tags: DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Jeanette Maier

This entry was posted on Monday, December 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm and is filed under Hustler Magazine Articles, Political Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.      http://larryflynt.com/magazinearticles/%E2%80%9Cthe-dc-madam-was-murdered%E2%80%9D/

UFOs and WMDs: Were the Nazis Building Super Weapons?

UFOs and WMDs: Were the Nazis Building Super Weapons?

by Micah Hanks on January 12, 2013 at 1:54 am

Posted In: Politics and History, UFOs

There are an entire host of conspiracy theories out there that involve the Third Reich and whatever supposed technologies the Nazis may have been designing during the Second World War. Ranging from nascent physics and aeronautics capable of producing flying saucers and elaborate underground bases, to the possibility that the Nazis had been planning their own design for a WMD on par with the Manhattan Project, there are a number of theories as to what, precisely, Hitler and his minions may have had in the works.
In 2010, the Daily Mail reported on alleged sighting of a “mysterious flying disc” seen in 1944 as it flew at low altitude over the River Thames, which was reported in prestigious sources that included the New York Times. Interestingly, there were said to have been photographs that accompanied the NYT story, detailing the craft’s path as it proceeded “at high speeds over the city’s high-rise buildings.”
Could such strange technologies really have been utilized by the Nazis prior to the end of the War? Surprisingly, while there is at least some anecdotal evidence that supports this, there may have been far more destructive technologies than supposed “flying discs” that the Nazis may have been developing.

The Mystery of the Nazi Discs

According to the Daily Mail article from 2010, the Germans had supposedly been developing plans for putting their flying discs in the airspace over Europe:

“[T]he Germans destroyed much of the paperwork on their activities but in 1960 in Canada UFO experts managed to recreate the device which, to their amazement, ‘did actually fly’.
The project was called the Schriever-Habermohl scheme. Rudolf Schriever was an engineer and test pilot, Otto Habermohl an engineer. It was based in Prague between 1941 and 1943.
Initially a Luftwaffe plan after Hitler ordered his airforce chief Hermann Goering to come up with a super-weapon, it was eventually taken over in 1944 by [Hans] Kammler.”

Hans Kammler (right), a high-ranking officer of the SS, had been placed directly in charge of the Nazi’s V-2 missile program toward the end of the War, though by 1942 he had already had a hand in the majority of the secret engineering projects the Nazis had been undertaking. These included advanced aviation projects, as well as Nazi underground bases, concentration camps, and other facilities for which clearance levels had been ultra-sensitive.
Opponents of the Nazi–UFO connection have argued, however, that if the Nazis had indeed been developing super weapons during the war, it is strange that their field-tested aircraft, captured by Allied forces following the War, were often inferior in terms of their structural integrity, employing wooden structures within cockpits that could have benefited greatly from the sturdiness that metal framework would provide. Of course, the reason for such material deficiencies had much to do with the fact that Nazi resources had been dwindling greatly toward the end of the conflict; arguably then, it would have been difficult for the Nazis to construct anything as advanced as the flying discs many purported to be seeing.
In large part, albeit curiously, the stories of Nazi flying discs appearing during wartime (and even those featured by more credible sources for such claims) would only be published following World War II. As researcher Kevin McClure had written of this angle to the mystery, there is literally “not one claim of flying Nazi discs [that] pre-dates 1949 and the increased US media interest in reports of flying saucers.” While this could suggest that the technologies underlying such craft had been regarded as highly secretive–especially during the War–the very fact that such stories of Nazi UFO technologies remain conspiracy theories today seems to warrant the idea that these technologies would still be considered highly secretive even in the present day. Thus, it would have been odd that mainstream media sources would be providing commentary on the alleged appearances of such craft.
On the other hand, what if the “appearances” of Nazi flying discs during the War Years had never really occurred, but instead these reports were fabricated for purposes of propaganda? How better to evoke paranoia from an enemy nation than to have a major media source carry stories about the alleged appearances of Nazi secret weaponry which, arguably, had seen a continuance with the ongoing reports of flying saucers throughout the late 1940s and into the height of the Cold War years. Nothing might be of greater concern to any major superpower than to create a public impression that the Nazis may have harnessed secretive technologies… and that someone else might have captured these technologies after the War, improved them, and was now putting them to good use.

Hitler’s Atom Bomb

While the debate over whether Nazi scientists were building flying saucers remains inconclusive, it is without question that the Reich had their sites on another potentially devastating technologies. In fact, while it is widely understood that the development of atomic weaponry by the United States had been the key technological development that turned the tides in favor of the allies, there is some evidence that suggests the Nazis were working on developing their own devastating nuclear technology.
On April 15, 1945, a German submarine Type XB U-boat known as U-234 departed from Kristiansand on a course for Japan, carrying along with their German crew a pair of Japanese Lieutenant commanders and two aircraft specialists. But of greater interest than their unique “guest” passengers had been the half ton of uranium oxide later recovered by Allied forces, upon the submarine’s surrender off the coast of Newfoundland one month later. (Radio contact with the captain of a sister vessel, German U-873, had resulted in a message confirming that Adoph Hitler had been killed, hence the decision of the crew of U-234 to surrender to America).
While the discovery of the large amount of uranium oxide aboard U-234 suggested that the Nazis may have intended to use it for a super-weapon, this information was suppressed throughout the majority of the Cold War years; it is nonetheless suspected that the recovered uranium stock contributed to the atomic weapons being developed in the states under the Manhattan Project. Researcher Joseph P. Farrell has taken the theory a bit further, developing a hypothesis that involves scenarios such as the spiriting of Nazi uranium out of Germany, which was deliberately handed off to American forces in an agreement that could have promised immunity to some of the compliant German officers. Other information that has appeared over the years in various affidavits and official testimony suggests that at least one test of a high-powered explosive device over the Baltic Sea may have occurred before the end of the War, further lending to the fire under the theories of a Nazi bomb.
So had the Nazis actually managed to build a functional WMD? Again, the notion seems remote… at least when we look at a conventional interpretation of history. Somehow, the obvious facts have managed to elude most, but certainly not all. In an article from the British Daily Mail dated July 13, 2011, the discovery of 126,000 barrels of nuclear waste material in an abandoned salt mine 2000 feet below the Earth’s surface led to new evidence regarding the extent of the Nazis’ supposed nuclear program:

“A statement by a boss of the Asse II nuclear fuel dump, just discovered in an archive, said how in 1967 ‘our association sank radioactive wastes from the last war, uranium waste, from the preparation of the German atom bomb.’
“This has sent shock waves through historians who thought that the German atomic programme was nowhere near advanced enough in WW2 to have produced nuclear waste in any quantities.”

This new information, paired with the discovery of data that alleges a bomb had actually been detonated, does seem to point toward the historical accuracy of theories that propose the Nazis had taken the necessary steps toward weaponizing their nuclear program:

Although the war hampered their work, by the fall of the Third Reich in 1945 Nazi scientists had achieved a significant enrichment in samples of uranium.
Mark Walker, a US expert on the Nazi programme said: ‘Because we still don’t know about these projects, which remain cloaked in WW2 secrecy, it isn’t safe to say the Nazis fell short of enriching enough uranium for a bomb. Some documents remain top secret to this day.
‘Claims that a nuclear weapon was tested at [the Baltic island of] Ruegen in October 1944 and again at [the Ohrdruf underground bunker complex in Thuringia] in March 1945 leave open a question, did they or didn’t they?’

Today, the history of the Western World as we know it certainly remains incomplete, and with a large amount of secrecy still appended to various clandestine programs the Nazis may have been undertaking, it stands to reason that far more may have been going on behind the scenes than many today even realize. This almost certainly had to do with weapons of mass destruction that could have been on par with what the United States used to end the conflict with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But in all likelihood, there are other facets of the Nazi intelligence that still remain hidden from public view… one can only guess what elements have managed to keep safely out of view of our mainstream history up until now; but despite remaining hidden, it is also likely that these innovations–whatever they may have been–have continued to have their technological influence on society, albeit in secretive fashion, since the end of the last great global conflict in modern history.

Nazi Saucer image from surbrook.devermore.net.              http://gralienreport.com/ufos/ufos-and-wmds-were-the-nazis-building-super-weapons/

"The Master Approached"

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

"The Master Approached"

They say you're usin' voodoo, I seen your feet walk by themselves
That god you been prayin' to
Is gonna give ya back what you're wishin' on someone else - Bob Dylan
In 1969, while cleaning the former office of a Los Angeles private detective named Earl LaFoon, the building manager found a canister of 16 mm colour movie labeled "Sirhan B Sirhan - 1967." It was a surveillance film, shot approximately half a year before Sirhan was charged with the murder of Robert F Kennedy, walking the streets of Pasadena.

Jonn Christian, co-author with William Turner of The Assassination of Robert F Kennedy, tracked down LaFoon and asked him about the film. The detective's story was rather fluid, first claiming it had been stolen, then denying that it was his, and finally abruptly ending the conversation by saying "You'll have to ask the Argonaut Insurance Company about this. That's all I have to say."

Argonaut had paid Sirhan a workman's compensation claim of $1,705 for injuries received in a fall from a horse while working at the Corona Ranch in 1966. Was Sirhan surveilled in a fishing expedition for insurance fraud? The relatively small amount involved and the fact Sirhan wasn't even claiming to be disabled render this conclusion suspect, especially since an Argonaut spokesman told Christian the company had nothing to do with it.

Sirhan was filmed without his knowledge shortly after he returned to his family home following an unexplained absence of three months, which had caused his mother extreme worry A veteran LAPD officer, who wished to remain nameless, told Turner and Christian that even the RFK task force Special Unit Senator could not account for the missing time.

Upon his return, one difference in Sirhan's character noted by those close to him was a deepened interest in the occult.

In the mid-60s Sirhan's ambition to become a jockey had led to work as a groomsman, which carried him into the orbit of an equestrian circle of privilege. The politics was far right, and the religion often had the gloss of conservative evangelicalism masking a fascination with the occult. William Thomas Rathke, a right-wing, 41-year old groom who actually had his own fundamentalist church, befriended Sirhan, but rather than talk about Jesus paradoxically began nurturing his interest in the occult. In a letter to Turner and Christian, Sirhan wrote that "We had many discussions on the occult - reincarnation, karma, clairvoyance, astral projection, the human aura. But I don't remember that we ever discussed politics."

In 1967 Rathke moved north to Livermore California, ostensibly to work at the Pleasanton Race Stables. Livermore, of course, was also home to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the principle contracting institutions for MKULTRA. (In 1965 the CIA had "entered into a Memorandum of Understanding" with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to "perform a number of projects for the Office of Scientific Intelligence.")

Sirhan and Rathke kept in touch, and Rathke and Livermore remained on his mind. In his notebook of "automatic writing" following his three-month absence, he wrote "Sirhan Livermore Sirhan" and juxtaposed Rathke's name with the repetition of "Let us do it," "Master Kuthumi." "Illuminati" and "Northern Valley." "Kuthumi" is clearly a reference to Blavatsky's Secret Chief Koot Hoomi, and Livermore Valley is in Northern California. When asked by Turner and Christian, Sirhan said he had no awareness of the word "Illuminati," and could only say that Kuthumi "sounds familiar in occult literature."

At Sirhan's 1969 trial hypnotist Bernard Diamond testified that the case was "an astonishing instance of mail-order hypnsosis, dissociated trances and the mystical occultism of Rosicrucian mind power and black magic." This was the limited hang-out of the compromised Defense team: Sirhan was mind controlled, but it was self-induced. Rathke supported this position, even anticipated it, by having visited Sirhan and his family in LA several times in the months before the assassination, now voicing concerns in letters that if Sirhan didn't abandon his rituals he might "lose control and do something terrible." The supposedly evangelical Rathke also infiltrated a Theosophist group in early 1968 and expressed similar concerns to its members, reminiscent of the JFK assassination's Odio Incident which saw Silvia Odio told afterward by a companion of "Lee Oswald" that he was crazy and capable of killing the President.

Sirhan's now 62, and lost his 13th bid for parole last week. He was unrepresented, his lawyer Lawrence Teeter - his first lawyer to believe in his innocence - died last year. Most Americans who still mourn Robert Kennedy don't feel much charity for his convicted killer, but that's to misundertand history and misapprehend justice.

From a CIA memorandum of 1954, originally published in Phil Melanson's The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination and reproduced in the July-August 1997 issue of Probe:

1. The ARTICHOKE Team visited [redacted] during period 8 January to 15 January 1954. The purpose of the visit was to give an evaluation of a hypothetical problem, namely: Can an individual of ****** descent be made to perform an act of attempted assassination involuntarily under the influence of ARTICHOKE?

2. PROBLEM:

a. The essential elements of the problem are as follows: (1) As a "trigger mechanism" for a bigger project, it was proposed that an individual of ****** descent approximately 35 years old, well educated, proficient in English and well established socially and politically in the ****** Government be induced under ARTICHOKE to perform an act, involuntarily, of attempted assassination against a prominent ****** politician or if necesssary, against an American official. The SUBJECT was formerly in [redacted] employ but has since terminated and is now employed with the *** Government. According to all available information, the SUBJECT would offer no further cooperation with [redacted.] Access to the SUBJECT would be extremely limited, probably limited to a single social meeting. Because the SUBJECT is a heavy drinker, it was proposed that the individual could be surreptitiously drugged through the medium of an alcholoic cocktail at a social party, ARTICHOKE applied and the SUBJECT induced to perform the act of attempted assassination at some later date. All the above was to be accomplished at one involuntary uncontrolled social meeting. After the act of attempted assassination was performed, it was assumed that the SUBJECT would be taken into custody by the *** Government and thereby "disposed of."
Qabbalists say that knowledge wears a false crown. Students of Deep Politics could say the same. Unlike Oswald and James Earl Ray, Sirhan's like us: he's alive. "Disposed of," but alive. Truth without justice - what is that?            http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/03/master-approached_22.html

Fatally Beautiful

Friday, February 09, 2007

Fatally Beautiful

She was born in the back of a thirty four Ford
And raised in a foster home
Her guardian made sexual connection with her
Before she was even grown - T Bone Burnett

Jay Leno said that politics is just show business for ugly people, which makes me wonder what business he thinks he's in. But he's not half-wrong, though the truth must be uglier than he could imagine.

Sensational celebrity deaths are sometimes more than distractions, especially when the fame is all about sex and money, because that's so much of what power is about. Just ask George HW Bush. It may be impolitic to whisper about the underage callboys, but we're allowed to have a chuckle at his tapping Teri Hatcher's ass. ("Frisky for an 82-year-old, ain't he?" Nyuk, nyuk.)

Smith's money came from J. Howard Marshall, who came from Yale and American oil, so you can imagine how his bloodline would be anxious to hold onto it. He served as special counsel to Standard Oil during the early war years, when the company was still trading with Germany and in open collaboration with IG Farben. (About which Judge Charles Clark ruled that "Standard Oil can be considered an enemy national.") Marshall went on to take a large stake in Koch Industries, a major financier of far-right interests

I won't bother to speculate here about Smith's death, other than to note the legitimacy such speculation is popularly accorded, which is broadly denied theorizing about similarly suspicious deaths which befall Leno's ugly people. What interests me is that we ought to consider sometimes the fate of the rich and beautiful without worry we're getting suckered into a pop culture edition of Trivial Pursuits.

Smith was a Marilyn Monroe knock-off who traded up, and over-the-top, in her own commodity. And Monroe, more than most beauties, knew something about the entracement of power. And yet her death stands outside the standard corpus of conspiracy literature. Perhaps because her significance is devalued by her celebrity. But more likely, because in death, as in life, she poses a threat to the Camelot mythos.

I don't think we need to choose. And if it's true, then we should say both that the Kennedy assassinations were High Crimes of State and that Monroe's was an assisted suicide.

She died of barbiturate overdose - beside her naked body was found an empty bottle of Nebutal - and yet her stomach was empty. John Miner, a deputy DA who attended the autopsy, witnessed a small amount of liquid, but as Donald Wolfe notes in The Assassination of Marilyn Monroe, "we did not detect any sign that would indicate it contained any heavy drugs or sedatives." The examiner's report reads that "a smear made from the gastric contents and examined under the polarized microscope shows no refractile crystals," which is inconsistent with ingestion of a large amounts of barbiturates. Coroner Thomas Noguchi requested analysis of Monroe's kidneys, stomach, urine and intestines, which would have revealed how the barbiturates had entered her system. The laboratory samples disappeared. Miner remarks, "in the entire history of the LA County coroner's office there had never been a previous instance of organ samples vanishing."

A week before her death, Monroe spent a weekend at Lake Tahoe's Cal-Neva Lodge as a doped-up plush-toy of owners Frank Sinatra and Sam Giancana. Later, friend Ralph Roberts said Monroe described it as a "nightmare," and that she'd felt more like a prisoner than a guest. Photographer Billy Woodfield, who'd worked with both Monroe and Sinatra, told Wolfe that Sinatra gave him a roll of film from the weekend to develop: "In his darkroom the photographer was shocked to see that the photos were of an unconscious Marilyn Monroe being sexually abused in the presence of Sam Giancana and Sinatra. Marilyn had been drugged in order for the compromising photos to be taken." Woodfield advised Sinatra to burn them.

FBI electronic surveillance of Giancana corroborated the account. Agent Bill Roemer remembers a conversation, after Monroe's death, between Giancana and Johnny Rosselli:

The conversation was muted, but what I had gleaned was that Giancana had been at Cal-Neva...with Sinatra and Marilyn the week before she died. There, from what I had been able to put together, she was involved in an orgy. From the conversation I overheard, it appeared she may have had sex with Giancana. Rosselli said to Giancana, "You sure get your rocks off fucking the same broads as the brothers, don't you?"

The weekend over, Marilyn flew back to LA and entered her limousine barefoot, "out of it - a mess."

Suddenly, what's so far-fetched about "presidential models"? Or did you think this just happened in the movies?

posted by Jeff Wells at 2/09/2007 05:02:00 PM     http://rigint.blogspot.com/2007/02/fatally-beautiful.html

          

Providing Electronic Access To Public Records Is 'Expensive' And Other Government Excuses For PACER Fees

from the well,-if-you're-not-going-to-give-it-away,-i-guess-we'll-just-have-to-go dept

Steve Schultze at Freedom to Tinker wants to know why the general public is still being asked to pay for access to public records. Since these records are generated using tax dollars, a person would reasonably expect they would be free to access, especially since they're the ones footing the bill. Of course, reasonable expectations are shattered by government entities daily and PACER is no exception.

As Mike noted in 2011, the fees to electronically access PACER records continue to rise, even as costs drop, leaving most Americans locked out by prohibitive fees (and a less-than-intuitive user interface). Schultze notes that not only are these fees excessive, they very likely are illegal.

[L]et’s review the law. 28 U.S.C. 1913 (note) says:

"The Judicial Conference may, only to the extent necessary, prescribe reasonable fees… to reimburse expenses incurred in providing these services."

Upon passing the E-Government Act of 2002, Congress noted its intent for the “only to the extent necessary” language:

The Committee intends to encourage the Judicial Conference to move from a fee structure in which electronic docketing systems are supported primarily by user fees to a fee structure in which this information is freely available to the greatest extent possible. For example, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts operates an electronic public access service, known as PACER, that allows users to obtain case and docket information from Federal Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts, and from the U.S. Party/Case Index. Pursuant to existing law, users of PACER are charged fees that are higher than the marginal cost of disseminating the information.

The current fees are unquestionably greater than the cost of providing the services. Since passage of the E-Government Act, the cost of storing and delivering bits of data over the Internet has continued to fall precipitously, and the cost of PACER access has gone up by 42 percent.

To that end, Schultze has drafted a bill entitled the Open PACER Act, which provides for "free and open access to electronic federal court records." The draft bill is dedicated to the memory of Aaron Swartz (whose "abuse" of a limited-time free access offer greatly helped give the RECAP project momentum) and is open for comment at openpacer.org. (Schultze himself assisted Swartz in this venture, putting together the Perl script for automating the PACER downloads. Shultze had plans for a "thumb drive corps" of volunteers to hit multiple libraries and utilize the free access to download millions of documents. However, Swartz struck out on his own, scraping PACER via Amazon cloud servers, leading directly to his first contact with the FBI.)

Now, we all know why we think these documents should be freely available. Now, it's time to hear from the judicial system. Schultze runs through the many reasons the government thinks we should keep on paying, summarized from a list of excuses fact sheet entitled "Electronic Public Access Program Summary: December 2012." He compiles a list of 10, all worth reading (and mocking), but here are a few of the better (pejorative form) ones.

Excuse #1: “PACER is cheap”

Whether or not PACER is subjectively inexpensive is immaterial. The law says that the fees can only reimburse for the expense of the service, and the courts are charging more than that. End of story. Nevertheless, PACER is — subjectively — expensive. Although it costs “only 10 cents per page,” the system charges not only per page for documents, but per “page” of search results, and per “page” of docket listings. It is easy to quickly run up a huge bill unless you are looking for one particular thing and you know exactly how to find it.

10 cents per page might sound like a standard library charge for printouts or copies, but we're talking about electronic access, where accessing 1,000 pages has no discernible effect on the "cost" of retrieving the documents. And charging per page or search results or docket listings? That's like having a surcharge added to your restaurant check for "accessing" the menu before ordering. The ridiculous search results charge is even more insulting considering how poorly PACER's search function performs.

Excuse #6: “You can always go to the courthouse”

This is a good one. The Administrative Office will tell you that you can go to your local courthouse to access PACER records for free. Well, maybe not “local,” but you can go to the district, bankruptcy, or circuit courthouse and access PACER. Of course, you can only access records for that particular court. You can’t access other PACER records. You also can’t download the records. You can only view them. If you want to print them, that will be 10 cents per page. That’s not legal.

lol

No. Seriously. Dry-as-straight-vermouth-in-the-Sahara "lol," the sort of laugh hastily assembled from equal parts of disbelief and disgust that inadvertently escapes you blindsided with the least helpful advice ever. Citizen: "I wish to electronically access several public records for free." Administrator: "Do you own a car?"

Not only is this suggestion utterly worthless, it's the height of bureaucratic obtuseness. Equating "a drive to the courthouse" with "electronically accessing the total of the PACER system on my schedule" is the sort of logic only deployed by someone who wishes to appear helpful but not actually help anybody. To top it off, you can only search that specific location's documents and then MEMORIZE ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION or you're back to 10 cents a page. No downloading allowed. Beautiful.

Excuse #8: “There is a high cost to providing electronic public access”

Here is how the PACER system architecture works: every court runs its own local PACER server, with local support staff and a private leased network link to Washington, DC. Are you a system administrator? Are you an average citizen who has heard the word “cloud” in the past five years? Does this system architecture seem insane? It is. It is even more offensive in light of the fact that the GSA has had, for years, a streamlined government procurement system for cloud hosting. This system is certified at FISMA level 2 security, and is hosted in a “private cloud” for the government, which is good enough for the Department of Homeland Security. It is provided by companies like Amazon at only a fraction higher cost than their commercial offerings. The courts could host all of the PACER services in the cloud — tomorrow — for under $1 million per year. They could allow all of these local system administrators to control their own PACER installations. They could obtain greater cost savings (and security) by further consolidating PACER hosting and system administration. Of course, they feel no pressure to do so when they interpret the law to allow them to charge whatever they deem necessary.

No one's denying there are costs associated with providing electronic access. But a majority of those costs flatten dramatically once the documents are uploaded. Compare that to "driving down to the courthouse," which ties up however many employees it takes to get you up and running on their local PACER service, not to mention staffers taking phone calls from those unwilling to cough up 10 cents a page for an updated docket listing.

Not only is the complaint about costs ridiculous, but taxpayers are being double-dipped for some of these fees. Taxpayers fund the generation of the documents, and as Schultze points out, PACER's largest users are also government entities. In 2009, the DOJ alone paid over $4 million in PACER fees. That's public money transferring from one government entity to another, while the taxpayer supports both the one handling "Accounts Payable" and the one handling "Accounts Receivable."

Public access is a noble goal, but the PACER system as it stands now locks out many members of the public with escalating fees and an intimidating, counterintuitive interface. The priority has shifted from public access to making money. Hopefully, another push towards free availability will get the ball (re)rolling. After all, Joe Lieberman (of all people) asked this very same question all the way back in 2009. Four years later we're still waiting for an answer. And the longer we wait, the more we pay.

Former Holmes Fluffer Worried about Health of Jeremy's Penis

She spoke out couple of days ago on her fears that the porn industry's signature phallus might be eroding in stature.

Bill Bakery

Author is is still searching for him(or her)self
superbious.com
2013-02-11 09:47:28

Puffy Pillows, famous fluffer to the porn stars, spoke out couple of days ago on her fears that the porn industry's signature phallus might be eroding in stature.

"Ron has not been taking care of himself and his cock is being punished for it," Pillows opined at a book signing yesterday in Dubuque, Iowa. She was there promoting her book Meat Throat: Fluffing, Gagging and Loving Every Minute of It!

"He just looks like hell. I fear that he has diabetes and coronary artery disease. His arteries are probably all clogged with the shit he has been eating all these years. If his arteries are clogged, how the hell is the blood going to get to his cock? It won't!"

Pillows was a long time fluffer in the porn industry. A fluffer is a vital position in porn operations. The fluffer is the person who fellates the male stars in between takes.

P

illows started out as an intern with John Holmes in the late 70's. Her notoriety grew as Holmes started specifically asking for her on porn shoots. It didn't take long for her to become the fluffer for porn's biggest (in all senses of the word) star. After Holmes's decline, she was in high demand and often worked for porn's most famous slingers.

She was detailed to Jeremy for 2 years in the early 90's, so she is intimate with the penis in question.

"Oh yeah, I know that cock like the back of my hand. And by the back of my hand I mean that I was often looking at the back of my hand whilst stroking his cock. So yeah, I would say I saw it once or twice."

When asked about her qualification to assess the overall health and well-being of one of porn's most legendary broners, she had this to say:

"Listen, I sucked with the best of them. I saw it all. Guys not being able to get themselves, ahh, shall we say, ready for the camera. Guys not being able to ejaculate. You name it, I saw it. I had methods to fix any problem that entered my mouth. I got so good that people started noticing and I was fortunate enough to make a career out of it. Hell, the USC Medical School gave me an honorary Doctorate in Urology five years ago!"

Photo by Dirty Bob

"Ron has always been a schlub. He has always been at least a little bit overweight. His one saving grace was that ungodly piece of meat in his pants. When I see it on camera nowadays, it doesn't give off the same sheen, the same luster. I believe this is due to Ron's lifestyle."

We could not reach Mr. Jeremy for comment, however, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came to Jeremy's defense and called Pillows a "wackjob" and her statements "irresponsible."

"I don't take that as an insult. Yes, I am a wackjob. Literally, I wack guys off for a living. I know a cock in trouble when I see it. That's part of my job."

When asked about her ability to diagnose Mr. Jeremy without having been in physical contact with him for years, she said, "So what!? If Dr. Drew can get away with diagnosing people without ever meeting them, why am I suddenly wrong?"


Copyright © Superbious.com and Bill Bakery 2012-2013 All Rights Reserved.

Man hunt for ex-soldier who shot police chief's daughter and killed policeman

POLICE plan to use spy drones in the hunt for a Rambo-style ex-soldier and policeman who has murdered three people and vowed to kill again.

By: Mike Parker

Published: Sun, February 10, 2013

Christopher Dorner is thought to be hiding in California’s snow-capped San Bernardino mountain

They believe burly, heavily-armed Christopher Dorner is holed-up in the wilderness of California’s snow-capped San Bernardino mountains 80 miles east of Los Angeles.

The burnt-out shell of his pick-up truck was discovered in the nearby resort of Big Bear, where residents and tourists have been warned to stay indoors as the search continues.

Yesterday, as a task force of 125 officers, some riding Snowcats in the rugged terrain, continued their search, it was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil.

A senior police source said: “The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”

Asked directly if drones have already been deployed, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who is jointly leading the task force, said: “We are using all the tools at our disposal.”

The use of drones was later confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed agents have been prepared for Dorner to make a dash for the Mexican border since his rampage began.

He said: “This agency has been at the forefront of domestic use of drones by law enforcement. That’s all I can say at the moment.”

Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD in 2008 for lying about a fellow officer he accused of misconduct, has vowed to wreak revenge by “killing officers and their families”.

In a chilling, 6,000 word “manifesto” on his Facebook page he has threatened to “bring warfare” to the LAPD and “utilise every bit of small arms training, demolition, ordinance and survival training I’ve been given.”

Dorner, 33, who rose to the rank of lieutenant in the US Navy and served in Iraq before joining the LAPD, also ominously warned that he has shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles to “knock out” any helicopters used to pursue him.

Last night, Brian Levin, a psychologist and professor of criminal justice at Cal State University, San Bernardino, said: “We’re talking about someone who basically perceives that a tremendous injustice has been done to him that took his life and identity.

“Now he is, quite literally, at war.”

Dorner’s rampage began last Sunday when he shot dead Monica Quan, 27, the daughter of a former LAPD captain, and her fiancé Keith Lawrence as they sat in their car outside their home in Irvine, California.

Three days later, he stole a boat at gunpoint from an 81-year-old man at a yacht club in San Diego, near the Mexican border. He abandoned the boat when he could not get its engine to start.

The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.

A senior police source

The following day, last Thursday, he was involved in a shoot-out with police in Cornona, 110 miles north of San Diego. The officers, one of whom was wounded, had been guarding one of his intended online targets.

Later that day, in nearby Riverside, he killed one police officer, whose name has not yet been revealed for security reasons, and wounded a second after opening fire on their car at a set of traffic lights.

As the manhunt for him broadened across numerous police jurisdictions, police mistakenly shot and wounded a mother and daughter delivering newspapers in a pick-up truck similar to Dorner’s.

That incident, in the LA suburb of Torrance, was astonishingly followed two hours later by another in the same area, when police again opened fire on a pick-up. This time, there were no casualties. Hours later, Dorner’s actual pick-up truck was found on a forest road near Big Bear City.

“He had torched it,” a San Bernardino police spokesman said. “We assume it may have broken down before he set fire to it.”

Since then, the huge manhunt for Dorner has focused on an area where hundreds of log cabins, both owned and rented out to tourists, are dotted around the mountainside.

“There is a strong possibility he is using an empty or abandoned one as a bolt-hole,” the police spokesman added last night.

LAPD police chief Charlie Beck, who has pleaded on TV with Dorner to surrender, accepted he might be “difficult to find”, adding: “He knows what he is doing. We trained him and he was also a member of the armed forces. It is extremely worrisome and scary.”

Police have also pleaded with local residents not to try to mount a civilian vigilante force or try to aid in the hunt for the fugitive.

However, one Big Bear resident, Dennis Pollock, said: “I did 12 years in the Marine Corps. Give me a sniper rifle, some gear, and point me in his general direction and get out of my way.”

Another local said: “We know every inch of this terrain and could be a real help to the cops, but all they’ve told us to do is stay at home and lock all our doors.”

Last night, America’s National Weather Centre warned that the hunt for Dorner could be further hampered by an expected snowfall of up to 6ins in the mountains. Wind gusts of up to 50mph are also forecast, creating an extreme wind-chill factor in the already freezing conditions.

San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon said: “To be honest, he could be anywhere right now. Torching his own vehicle could have been a diversion to throw us off track. Anything is possible with this man.”

Facebook Is making you miserable, scientists find

naturalnews.com printable article

Originally published November 29 2012

Facebook Is making you miserable, scientists find

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Two separate studies have emerged pointing to the conclusion that for all its popularity, Facebook is actually making people unhappy.

The first study, conducted by researchers from New Zealand's University of Canterbury, sought to determine how people felt about the various activities that they spent time on during the day. Researcher Carsten Grimm used a technique known as "experience sampling," sending text messages to people to ask what they were doing and how they ranked the activity in terms of pleasure, engagement, meaningfulness and happiness.

"I texted people three times a day over a week and the response rate was really high," Grimm said. "People replied to on average 97 percent of all text-messages, and texts were sent at random times, so there is a really rich sample of everyday life to look at."

Spending time on Facebook ranked among the 10 worst activities in terms of unpleasantness and lack of engagement. It was ranked as the least meaningful activity and the one that made people the second-most unhappy, surpassed only by recovering from illness.

Texting, e-mailing and computer tasks also scored poorly in terms of pleasure and happiness.

Although the study did not determine why people felt the way they did about Facebook, prior studies have indicated that many Facebook users become depressed because they view their friends' lives as happier than their own. This may be a side effect of the fact that Facebook users are more likely to post about their happy experiences than their unhappy ones.

More friends = More stress

Another study, conducted by researchers from the University of Edinburgh Business School, found that the more social circles people have represented among their Facebook friends, the more stressful they find Facebook to use.

The researchers surveyed more than 300 people about their Facebook usage. The participants were mostly students and had an average age of 21. The average participant had Facebook friends from seven different social circles, the study found, including offline friends, siblings, extended family, colleagues and friends of friends. Being "friends" with someone's own parents or employers produced the greatest increase in stress.

"Facebook used to be like a great party for all your friends where you can dance, drink and flirt," study author Ben Marder said. "But now with your Mum, Dad and boss there the party becomes an anxious event full of potential social landmines."

55 percent of parents now monitor their children's Facebook pages, and more than half of all employers report having denied people jobs due to the content of their Facebook pages.

And it's not just worries about what to post or delete that produce stress, Marder said. Many Facebook users now "regulate their offline behavior" by not engaging in certain behaviors around cameras, for fear that they will be portrayed negatively on Facebook.

Although Facebook's privacy settings allow users to restrict who views their posts, only one-third of users take advantage of this feature, the study found.

Sources for this article include:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121126131218.htm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz
http://vr-zone.com
http://www.inquisitr.com

---

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

More people bailing out of Facebook; is a FB collapse imminent?

naturalnews.com printable article

Originally published February 9 2013

More people bailing out of Facebook; is a FB collapse imminent?

by PF Louis

(NaturalNews) Facebook caught on fast and furious to become the premier social networking platform in the world. In 2003, Mark Zuckerberg, depicted in the movie "The Social Network" as a brash Harvard sophomore who cared not about others' thoughts and/or feelings, started a social networking interface called Facemash.

Facemash was initially for Harvard students. It's name soon morphed into TheFacebook. Mark inspired technical help and financing from three other Harvard students who eventually sued him after TheFacebook became simply Facebook and went well beyond Harvard's campus with investors' money attached.

Zuckerberg settled with those other three students. Everyone made money, especially Mark. As Facebook's popularity grew, other dot-com groups and individuals started buying shares at high prices, raising Facebook's value. Then Mark started selling shares of Facebook publicly in 2012.

A cyberspace tower of babble

Despite Facebook's business applications and providing a networking platform to various activists for social, environmental, and health reform, a large part of the billions of worldwide users who have contributed to Facebook's one trillion visits engage in narcissistic nonsense.

A lot of the photos and videos uploaded are simply snippets of people's personal life. Or sharing a thought or photo of someone's favorite celebrity, pet or girlfriend, even posting gossip. This was pretty much the original intent of Harvard's Facemash.

Starting a Facebook account requires some input into a profile, which can include listing favorite books, music, and movies. Seems nice at first, but with its vast, easy instant message capability, Facebook can become rather bothersome with a large enough roster of user friends.

A couple of years ago, an episode of the TV cartoon sitcom "The Simpsons" featured Bart and Lisa, the Simpson kids, stressing over answering messages from relatives and others. The stress of being obligated to respond to instant messages from several sources was highlighted in that episode.

From Natural News writer David Gutierrez: "Spending time on Facebook ranked among the 10 worst activities in terms of unpleasantness and lack of engagement. It was ranked as the least meaningful activity and the one that made people the second-most unhappy, surpassed only by recovering from illness." (http://www.naturalnews.com/038134_facebook_stress_unhappy.html)

Many became too preoccupied to function normally, or were too concerned about others' ability to check in and read their Facebook materials. Some studies determined that users could feel inferior after viewing others' pages depicting happier, more successful lifestyles.

Others were concerned about work superiors', teachers', and parents' ability to snoop into their private lives by visiting their Facebook page. Only an estimated one-third of Facebook users apply the privacy settings. Then there are the truthers' and activists' concerns of Big Brother peaking into their pages.

Then there are the friends of friends who add to the stress of what to say or what not to say.

But the narcissistic aspect of Facebook is annoying for many users, causing more to drop out of using Facebook temporarily or permanently. More and more users are getting tired of trying to acknowledge unsolicited Facebook friends reporting shopping sprees, what they had for dinner where, and "look at my new" whatever.

As those disenchanted numbers grow, some analysts are looking at the possibility of Facebook's bubble bursting. Apparently, it is better to have a few good close real friends than a multitude of virtual acquaintances crashing your site.

True enough on a personal level, but for businesses, entrepreneurial opportunists, and truth seeking activists who can't show and tell what they want to share in their own real communities, the virtual community of Facebook is a boon.

Maybe adopting Mark's perceived attitude of not caring what others think, say, or feel can help you navigate Facebook for productive use without stressing.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/is_facebook_over/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#History

http://www.informationweek.com

---

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

Obama plans to use military drones against American journalists, freedom activists and critics of government

naturalnews.com printable article

Originally published February 11 2013

Obama plans to use military drones against American journalists, freedom activists and critics of government

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) President Obama plans to use military drones in the skies over the United States to assassinate journalists, patriots and critics of his administration. That's the inescapable conclusion from the emerging pattern of evidence now publicly available -- keep reading for details.

Front and center in this pattern of evidence is the 16-page memo that was just released by Obama's lawyers in the Department of Justice. This memo puts forth a "legal justification" for the President to order the drone assassination of any American citizen he names -- anytime, anywhere, for any reason. This new power claimed by the President has no basis in federal law or the Constitution. It is an invented power of absolute tyranny that puts the power to decide who lives and who dies in the hands of one man. This document essentially legalizes the President acting as a serial murderer.

It is claimed that the purpose of this new power to simply name any American the President doesn't like and immediately have them struck by a Hellfire missile launched from a drone is designed to "protect America." Yet the 16-page memo that claims to justify all this was intentionally written to include Americans on U.S. soil as potential targets.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained just a few days ago on Fox News:

"This 16-page white paper is written so vaguely that the logic from it could... permit the President to kill Americans here in the United States."

That's the whole point, actually. If Americans on U.S. soil were to be excluded from such drone assassinations, such language would have been made readily apparent in the memo. But no such language is found in the memo. In fact, the tone of the document quite clearly states that the President has the authority to order drone killings of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, under any circumstances.

This legal manipulation even has U.S. Senators worried. Democrat Senator Patrick J Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley sent a letter to Obama on Friday, stating, "The deliberate killing of a United States citizen pursuant to a targeted operation authorized or aided by our government raises significant constitutional and legal concerns."

That's the understatement of the year.

U.S. Senators are trying to create an "oversight committee" so that a few of them are part of the illegal, unconstitutional decision process of which Americans the U.S. government should murder next. As Kurt Nimmo reports with InfoWars.com:

Feinstein has proposed "legislation to ensure that drone strikes are carried out in a manner consistent with our values, and the proposal to create an analogue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the conduct of such strikes," in other words a secret tribunal that will hand down kill orders for Americans the government believes are "suspected militants."

If drones are to be unleashed under the values of Feinstein -- an outright traitor to the nation and a serial violator of the U.S. Constitution -- then God help us all. Remember, Feinstein is the Senator who has already said she wants all Americans to turn all their guns in. She literally wants the entire U.S. civilian population disarmed so that government has all the weapons, including drones which Feinstein wants flying over U.S. cities, ready to strike named American citizens at any moment.

The American "battlefield" doctrine and the NDAA

In defending the drone assassination powers of the President, you might hear language used that says drones will "only be used on the battlefield." That seems to imply they will only be used in the Middle East, right?

Wrong. The USA has been legally defined as the new "battlefield" by the NDAA. That's the National Defense Authorization Act which also allows for the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, without legal representation and even without them ever being charged.

The USA is the new "battlefield," and when you combine the NDAA and the DOJ's new drone killing justification memo, you now have the claimed legal framework for any American on U.S. soil to be arrested, detained, tortured or blown to bits without warning and without even a single shred of evidence being presented against him.

Yes, this is America today. Right now. You are living under a military dictatorship and most of you don't even realize it yet. Even liberals and progressives are starting to wake up to Obama's tyranny, by the way. On Democracy Now, Daniel Ellsberg recently described Obama's actions as a "systematic assault on the Constitution."

Who are the terrorists?

Of course, anyone who raises these points will be immediately dismissed with the claim that all this new power in the hands of the President will only be used "against terrorists."

Okay, then who are the terrorists, exactly? It turns out they are YOU!

As Judge Napolitano recently explained:

The [Janet Napolitano DHS] memorandum said that people who are pro-life, people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms, returning veterans, people who think the government is too big and the IRS is too powerful, could be characterized as domestic terrorists. That could characterize two-thirds of the country. (Click here to see related video.)

Another DHS report named as terrorists anyone who opposes illegal immigration, abortion or federal taxes.

The pieces of the puzzle

So now it all becomes clear:

1) The NDAA legalized the federal government arresting, detaining and torturing American citizens if they were classified as "terrorists."

2) The DOJ drone-killing memo legalized the President murdering anyone he names by simply claiming they might be associated with "terrorists."

3) The DHS announces that anyone who isn't an absolutely Big Government boot-licker and Obama worshipper IS A TERRORIST.

And there you have it: The full circle of justification to use military drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Simply call them terrorists, and the rest of the legal framework backs you up.

I repeat: All that is necessary to justify the murder of American citizens without trial is labeling them "terrorists" even with no evidence to support such a claim. The drone killings require no evidence. They only require the signature of one man.

Who is likely on the drone strike target list in the USA

So who is most likely to be assassinated by President Obama once drone strikes are fully unleashed in the USA?

• Journalists.
• Political opponents.
• Anti-government protesters. (One Hellfire missile takes 'em all out.)
• Online activists.
• Veterans.
• Gun owners and gun shops.
• Constitutionalists and libertarians.

Drone strikes are completely silent because the Hellfire missiles arrive faster than the speed of sound. You don't even hear the missile until after the explosion. The blast radius of a Hellfire missile is 15 - 20 meters, and everything inside that radius is completely obliterated. This is more than enough to destroy entire homes, apartments and office buildings, not to mention vehicles and even light bunkers.

World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah actually voiced his concern about Obama being reelected, saying that he believed Obama would "kill journalists" if he won a second term. Farah is not being paranoid. He's right on the money with where this is going. Click here to read his article published right before the 2012 election.

Drones are weapons of tyranny

In the history of America, rifles are the weapons of liberty, and in any war limited to just rifles and similar weapons, the People will always achieve victory over tyranny.

But tyrannies tend to rise up when specialized, highly-complex weapons come onto the scene, creating an imbalance of military power that suppresses the People. Drones are that new weapon: There is virtually no citizen defense against drones, and drones can strike targets anyone in the country with zero warning. You do not get called to appear in court, you do not get arrested, and you do not receive a warning. You're simply murdered by the U.S. President without warning and without a trial. That's the new America.

The cover story: Drone strikes that actually take out the homes of Obama's political enemies can even be explained away as "bombings" using conventional explosives. A convenient cover story can keep drones out of the news, even while drone strikes are taking out journalists, activists and critics of the criminal Obama regime.

You might wonder, then, what is the strategy for defending against drones? It all comes down to men with rifles raiding drone airfields and taking them over. Once again, rifles become the single most important tool of resistance in the face of tyranny, which is exactly why the government is right now desperately seeking to register and confiscate all rifles in the hands of U.S. citizens. The MQ-1C Warrior drone has an operational range of 675 miles, meaning that drone airfields must be relatively close to intended targets. The airfields are the weak link, and this is what Americans must take back if drone mass murder is unleashed against American citizens (by any president, now or in the future).

There are also some high-tech defenses against drones. Iran appears to have hacked a drone by feeding it false GPS signals, guiding it to land on an Iranian runway where it was then taken into custody by the government there. This sort of GPS hacking appears to be relatively simple to accomplish, but the technique has never been proven in an actual military conflict.

Another defense against drones is to stay on the move. Don't hole up in fixed locations for long periods of time. Drone strikes are only effective if the intended target's location is known with certainty. In a resistance war against a tyrannical government, resistance forces will of course remain very mobile and unpredictable in their locations and movements. This will cause the government to waste lots of Hellfire missiles blowing up empty houses and likely killing the wrong people.

Every drone strike against U.S. targets will, of course, enrage the population even further, resulting in yet another mass wave of recruitment into the resistance. The more Americans Obama (or another president) kills with drones, the more powerful the resistance becomes. This spiral continues until there is either a violent armed overthrow of the government or the entire resistance movement is mass murdered by the government itself. In the case of the latter, that's how we end up with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other dictatorial tyrants who assume power in the aftermath of blood running in the streets.

Stop being so naive -- this is happening NOW!

If you think any of this seems outlandish, you aren't paying attention. The 16-page drone assassination memo has already been published. The NDAA is federal law. The DHS memos are real. All of us who question government, who own firearms, and who believe in the Bill of Rights have already been named terrorists.

The stage is being set to wage an all-out war with the American people. That's the reason DHS has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. It's the reason DHS is buying 7,000 full-auto assault rifles. All these weapons and ammo are for exclusive use inside the United States of America, on U.S. soil.

This is why thousands of bulletproof roadside checkpoints have been purchased by DHS. It's why steel cable dividers are being installed on highways, so that you can't turn around when approaching a TSA checkpoint. This is why talk of shooting gun owners is openly tolerated and even encouraged in the mainstream media and on social networks.

We are witnessing a full-on ramping up toward total war with the American people. This war will be caused (false-flagged) by the government itself, and it will be waged on U.S. soil, using drone assassinations, nationwide gun confiscation, FEMA camps and of course a declaration of Martial Law to justify it all.

The end game is a complete takeover of America by socialist / communist / fascist forces and the outright abolition of liberties and firearms in the hands of citizens. America is scheduled for termination, and people like Obama have been placed in power precisely because he can fool enough people for a sufficient amount of time to get this plan underway without popular resistance. Obama is seductive and hypnotic, so his followers will think he's helping America even while he's actually destroying it by design.

Drones are terminators in the sky, controlled by one man -- a tyrant who sits in the Oval Office and respects no boundaries of either the Constitution or federal law. He makes law up as he goes along, betraying his oath of office and violating the very tenants of justice upon which this country was founded.

Obama is a traitor to America and a danger to us all. For the sake of America's future, he must be impeached, thrown out of office and replaced with a President who actually upholds the Constitution and respects the laws of the land.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_...
http://www.infowars.com/it-has-happened-here/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJb5pbWhe4
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-2nd-term-war-on-domestic-opposition...

---

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

Another FBI Patsy Arrested in Fake Bomb Plot to Start a Civil War

truther February 11, 2013 4

Eric Blair
AP

The FBI is at it again, boasting about stopping another contrived terror plot of their own making. This time they nabbed a right-winger working with the Taliban which happen to be an FBI agent provocateur.

According to the FBI:

Federal agents arrested Matthew Aaron Llaneza, age 28, of San Jose, California, this morning after he allegedly attempted to detonate a vehicle-borne explosive device at a bank branch in Oakland.

Llaneza’s arrest was the culmination of an undercover operation during which he was closely monitored by the FBI’s South Bay Joint Terrorism Task Force. Unbeknownst to Llaneza, the explosive device that he allegedly attempted to use had been rendered inoperable by law enforcement and posed no threat to the public…

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, on November 30, 2012, Llaneza met with a man who led him to believe he was connected with the Taliban and the mujahidin in Afghanistan. In reality, this man was an undercover FBI agent.

Mike Masnick of TechDirt sums up this story nicely:

The details are familiar: random guy with no actual connection to terrorists, and no actual way to build a connection with terrorists, is taken in by an FBI undercover agent who works with him to build a ‘bomb’ that was never a bomb. In other words, there was no plot. There was no bomb. There was just a bunch of undercover agents playing dressup.

However, there is something different about this patsy versus the Islamic recruits in the past. Although the undercover FBI agent posed as a Taliban agent, Llaneza himself was reportedly seeking to implicate right-wing militia groups to incite a government response that he hoped would lead to a civil war. Hmm. That’s interesting.

The FBI says:

He (Llaneza) proposed structuring the attack to make it appear that the responsible party was an umbrella organization for a loose collection of anti-government militias and their sympathizers. Llaneza’s stated goal was to trigger a governmental crackdown, which he expected would trigger a right-wing counter-response against the government followed by, he hoped, civil war.

Are we to believe that a genuine anti-government right winger would collude with a Taliban agent to blow up a private bank in hopes of starting a civil war?

The FBI has become known for keeping the fear of the terror threat alive through creating over 150 patsies that they stop at the last minute to look like heroes. Below is Trevor Aaronson, author of The Terror Factory, discussing these devious tactics by the FBI:

Up until now, the FBI’s fake terror campaign has been used to inflate the Islamic terror threat. Now it seems they are seeking to inflate the threat from militias, right-wing extremists, and other “loosely connected anti-government groups”. And, strangely, they’re attempting to indicate that these groups may somehow work with the Taliban.
It’s stranger than fiction, folks.             

Inside the FBI's 'Terror factory' http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LpTOrNQ3G9Q

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics: How The BPI Cherry Picks Its Averages To Pretend File Sharers Spend Less

from the add-back-the-missing-zeroes dept

We've written more than a few times about how multiple studies have shown time and time again that those who file share tend to spend more on buying music than those who don't. We've also talked about how the RIAA absolutely hates this fact and tries to dance around it at all costs. The latest move comes from RIAA sister organization, BPI (basically the UK RIAA), which has released a report (pdf) that they claim shows the opposite:

Appearing to debunk the common belief that filesharers spend more on music than other consumers, Kantar Worldpanel found that the average spend over a 12-month period for professed filesharers was lower than the spend of consumers who only use legal services. Kantar Worldpanel’s respondents diarise their music purchases on an ongoing basis – there are no estimates made of past purchasing, just an accurate recording of spending patterns over time. The panel data demonstrated that filesharers spent an average of £26.64, compared with £33.43 by legal-only consumers, refuting the popular argument that filesharers are the heaviest spenders on music.

Of course, when you're talking about averages, it's not difficult to fudge the numbers a bit, and as TorrentFreak explains, that's exactly what BPI did. If you break out the specific numbers, you can tell a very different story:

- Legal only digital music buyers spend an average of £33.43 a year.
- File-sharers, in total, spend an average of £26.64 a year.
- File-sharers, the 44.8% who are not buying, spend an average of £0 a year.
- File-sharers, the 55.2% who are buying, spend an average of £48.26 a year.

TorrentFreak confronted BPI on this, and they shot back that TorrentFreak's analysis was unfair:

"You cannot just wave away the 44.8% of file sharers who are not spending anything on music, despite being music 'consumers', and pretend they don’t exist or are not relevant. What happens if only 5% of file sharers are spending on music? Do we disregard everyone else who is freeloading?," a BPI spokesman said.

"It's not credible to discount the people who consume music, for free, illegally."

Fair enough... except that BPI's own numbers "wave away" all of the people who consume music legally for free, but don't spend anything on music. That is, there is a very large percentage of people who don't pay for music, but who also do not infringe. These people may listen to music on the radio or while walking around in stores, but neither purchase any music, nor file share infringing works. And if the BPI was being intellectually honest they would have to average all of those £0s into the average for "legal only" if they want to require all the £0s to be added into the infringing side as well. Basically, BPI is picking and choosing who it includes and excludes to make their argument look better. When it hand waves away all the zeroes on its side of the argument, while including all the ones on the other side of the argument, of course it'll make the numbers look better for its argument. However, if you're going to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have only two choices. Either you include all the people who don't buy on both sides or on neither. BPI didn't do that. They only chose the ones who don't buy on the file sharing side.

It's important to note that an analysis of the UK market by economist Will Page, back when he was with PRS for Music, noted that only 40% of the UK adult population actually bought any music at all. So you've got 60% non-buyers, some of whom are file sharing and some of whom are not. The BPI report chose to only include those who file shared, and ignore those who didn't. That's a clear methodological problem with their data. If they're going to include the non-buyers on the file sharing side, they need to include the non-buyers on the "legal" side, or they're simply lying with statistics.